ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Conflicts
Great idea. Can't help feeling it would make more sense in chronological rather than alphabetical order. LordJuss 15:14, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT) : Not in the cases where the date is unknown or spans a 100 year timeframe. Since not all dates are known, their order, placed alphabetical, remains the only constant. --Gvsualan 18:58, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT) : Actually on second thought something else needs to be done with this. I could see subcategorizing some of those listed, in terms of having "Dominion War" and listed below it all of the major engagements.. and so forth. That however is limited as well, in much the same way as categorizing the unknown timeframe battles in a chronological list. --Gvsualan 19:02, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT) I think its much better chronological than alphabetical. Good work Gvsualan!-Rebelstrike2005 20:09, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT) : Thanks, unfortunately most of this is simply a repeat or "cover" of Interstellar history. --Gvsualan 20:14, 1 Mar 2005 (GMT) Battle of the Briar Patch Since we have Battle of Veridian III and Battle of the Bassen Rift, could an article on the battle between the Enterprise-E and the Son'a in Insurrection be created? Tough Little Ship 14:35, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I think "a list of all military conflicts that have occurred" is simply to encompassing. This seems to create articles where there shouldn't be some. However, as there is a "Battle of Veridian III", I can see how "Battle of the Briar Patch" might fit in, so I guess it should be added. But, some things I'd question: *Prometheus Incident *Year of Hell *Unimatrix Zero *Endgame ^ If these are kept, they'll need to be renamed, as these link to episodes, and IMO aren't real battles anyway. Also, I suggest a section be added for "Alternate timeline conflicts", for the rebellion of "IAMD I and II" and *Second Federation-Klingon War (alternate timeline): c. 2340s-2366 *Battle of Terok Nor: 2372 (mirror universe) - AJHalliwell 23:59, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) I removed Unimatrix Zero and Endgame, but I suppose Endgame could be put back, if someone wanted to, but called something else. I was also thinking of adding Martok's attack on Monac, but if someone thinks its a bad idea let me know. Tough Little Ship 18:52, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I don't really see a need to list every skirmish a single starship had. I can easily think of a dozen instances that involve one starship against another, and they hardly constitute something to the scale of a large conflict. Especially when it comes up to us making our own names for these conflicts...ie. Battle of Veridian III or The Destruction of the Odyssey. This information really could be merged to several different, and more concise, articles. --Alan del Beccio 19:07, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) **Perhaps by having a "conflicts" subsection to starship pages...such as for and the various engagements it was involved in. For example the conflicts in Unimatrix Zero and could be placed there. As well, the so-called "Prometheus Incident" could really be placed on the page and Tal Shiar page, if written precisely, without creating a separate page altogether. Create a web. --Alan del Beccio 19:12, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) *** I'd like to see a page on the Battle of Monac. --Excelsior 20:05, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I have to agree with Gvsualan on this one. People get excited about these incidents and want to create articles but there are too many small engagements to start naming them all "battles", esp. without a canon reference. I think destruction of the Odyssey is an exception due the extensive surrounding material. But Briar Patch, Bassen Rift, Khitomer are all less than a "battle" in my mind. We don't have an article for the "Federation-Lyssian War" but as loosely as we are defining battle in some of these situations we might as well write that too, even though it was brief and totally one-sided. Logan 5 15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Battle of Wolf 359 I believe this battle took place in 2367 not 2366. The Best of Both Worlds, Part II indicates stardate 44001.4 which resolves to 2367. Captain Braxton 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) :Stardates are not reliable for measuring precise dates or even years. --GO RED SOX 20:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC) ::Actually, the 24th century stardates are farily useful, since the production team has set up a systematic approach to stardating starting with TNG and it's successors. 4 stood for 24th centuy. The next digit stood for the season of the ep and the next 4 digits (3 before and one after the decimal) are evenly spaced across the calendar year. Note that they hold up ONLY for stardates from TNG forward, the system doesn't work going backwards.Capt Christopher Donovan 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) :::But in this circumstance, wouldn't that system mean that BoBW1 took place in a different year as BoBW2? Maybe Stardates shouldn't be used as a be all, end all indicator of dates for season finales/premieres. Clearly, parts 1, and parts 2 should take place in the same year, in most situations.Hossrex 00:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ::Technically, Part One starts at SD43994.1 (December 29, 2367) Part Two picks up still in 2367 (SD 43999.1, Dec 30, 2367, I checked the script and did the calc). The next confirmed stardate is in the next S4 ep "Family", 44009.3 (January 3, 236'8'), where Picard spends some time with his family. The following episode "Brothers" starts on SD 44143.7 (Feb 22, 2368). This is consistent with the "five or six weeks" Riker said it would take them to get Enterprise back in service (at the end of BoBW II), and start the mission that was aborted due to the medical emergency with the Potts boy.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC) :::You've given a different Stardate for the episode then Capt Christopher Donovan gave. I'm not sure who's right. :p Hossrex 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)